JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI J.:- This is a State appeal against acquittal and revision application by the complainant aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No.987 of 1999. 2. The accused persons were tried for commission of offence punishable under section 306, 304-8 & 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for abatement of suicide or for being instrumental to her death on account of dowry related demand and cruelty on that ground. 3. The prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses. Testimonies of remaining witnesses are summarized hereinafter: 4. The appellant and revision petitioners have given special thrust on certain version of Prosecution witnesses Nos.1 & 3 which portion of their depositions is quoted below for ready reference. 5. PW-1 JANARDAN WAMANRAO SAWARKAR DEPOSED AS FOLLOWS: IMPLIED DEMAND: (a) "Prior to the engagement ceremony we had one meeting with the family members of Awachat family. In the said meeting the expectations were put forth by the family of the bridegroom that the marriage of Rajesh and Sonali should be a grand function. They were also expecting that we should present the gold and silver ornaments which will suit to their status and the other welcome and all other programmes relating to the marriage should also be performed nicely so that the ceremony could be remembered by the relatives and the people. [Quoted from page 74 of revision paper book] (b) "After the engagement ceremony an amount of Rs.35,000/- was demanded by the accused persons for the purchase of clothes. A demand was also made of a golden chain of 2 tolas, by the accused. According to the demand, after 15 days I came to Nagpur along with my elder son-in-law Dr. Bhalme and the cousin of deceased Sonali namely Murlidhar Kathane. We all went to the house of accused and gave them an amount of Rs.35,000/- and also a golden chain of 2 tolas, as per their demand". [Quoted from page 74 & 75 of revision paper book] (c) "When the special lunch was to be commenced though everything was rightly prepared, the accused withdrew themselves from the said lunch for the reason that they were not satisfied with the presentation articles given by us to deceased Sonali in the marriage. Further they were not happy and satisfied with the golden ornaments of about 10 tolas. Further they were not happy and satisfied with the golden ornaments of about 10 tolas. They were expecting some more golden ornaments and for all these reasons the accused got up from the 'Pangat' without taking meals". [Quoted from page 75 of revision paper book] DISSATISFACTION ABOUT TREATMENT AND CONSEOUENTHUMILIATION: (d) "We all further tried to convince the accused persons that whatever is lacking, we will try our ever best to comply with but they should take the meal. [Quoted from page 76 of revision paper book] (e) "It was observed that accused no.1 was still unhappy and dissatisfied on account of non-fulfillment of his expectations as to the presentation articles, gifts and golden ornaments. The accused persons were consistently bearing a feel that we have not honoured them as to their status". [Quoted from page 75 of revision paper book] (f) "Whenever I used to have a talk with Minal and Rashmi, they used to inform me that the marital life of Sonali does not appear to be happy and joyful". [Quoted from page 77 of revision paper book] (g) "Whenever Minal and Rashmi used to come at Yavatmal, they used to inform me regarding the unhappy marital life of deceased Sonali. Whenever deceased Sonali used to make a phone call to us at Yavatmal she was never allowed to complete her talk. In the midst of the talk either her mother in law Tarabai or her sister in law Pinki used to snatch the receiver from her and used to disconnect the phone. Whenever I used to make a call at the house of deceased Sonali, then also I never had a full talk with deceased Sonali. After I had a preliminary talk with Sonali, somebody used to take telephone from her hand and interfere in our talk". [Quoted from page 77 of revision paper book] (h) "On 19-8-1999, deceased Sonali came at Yavatmal along with Rashmi. When she arrived at Yavatmal, she was not at all happy. The amount I enquired with her, she broke into tears and she told me that she has not been liked by her husband Rajesh, she further told me that Rajesh do not possess any interest in her. She further informed me that Rajesh behave with her very indifferently and does not show any love and affection with her. The amount I enquired with her, she broke into tears and she told me that she has not been liked by her husband Rajesh, she further told me that Rajesh do not possess any interest in her. She further informed me that Rajesh behave with her very indifferently and does not show any love and affection with her. Sonali further spoke to me that her husband, mother in law, sister-in-law and brother in law Rakesh all are much dissatisfied because of non-fulfillment of their expectations, she further told me that I should arrange for more gifts and other valuables and once I should give all things to the accused, otherwise her survival will be very difficult. Sonali further told me that we will be again require to do something and to honour them to the accused satisfaction". [Quoted from page 76 & 77 of revision paper book] 6. PW-3 RASHMI JANARDAN SAWARKAR: IMPLIED DEMAND: (i) "On the day of marriage itself, the persons from the side of the accused were unhappy and unsatisfied on account of not getting the required presentations, valuables and further on account of the honour and hospitality which they were expecting from us. It was the say of the persons from Awachat family that they have not received the adequate presentations, valuables, ornaments etc. Further they were saying that they did not receive the honour of their status and on this count the persons from the marriage party walked of from the lunch organized after the marriage". [Quoted from page 94 & 95 of revision paper book] (j) "It was the comment of accused Rakesh that why to carry all these presentations which are too short in number and value". [Quoted from page 95 of revision paper book] (k) "When I reached to the house of Sonali, accused Rajesh has not at home. I had an opportunity to have a talk with Sonali. In the said talk, Sonali told me that all her in-law i.e. her father in law, mother in law, brother in law and even her husband are all not treating her well, she further told me that they always taunt her and blame her for bringing less dowry and for not honouring them as per their status. She further told me that all these persons are too greedy". She further told me that all these persons are too greedy". [Quoted from page 95 & 96 of revision paper book] (l) "What I observed was that Sonali was not at all happy at her matrimonial house". [Quoted from page 96 of revision paper book] (m) "On that day, Sonali and I went to Yavatmal. In the journey also, Sonali was all along unhappy and nervous, At once, she was broken to tears because of her ill-experience at her matrimonial house. She further stated me that at some day or other, all her in laws be called at the house and they should be presented with the valuables & ornaments according to their wish, so that she can be relieved from the harassment which she is facing". [Quoted from page 96 of revision paper book] (n) "At Yavatmal also, Sonali repeated the same thing that my parents should once satisfy the demands of the accused persons as regards to the valuable and ornaments". [Quoted from page 96 of revision paper book] (o) "Sonali in my presence told my mother that she is all along is being ill-treated by her mother in law and even by accused Rajesh. She further told my mother that she is also being taunted and blamed on account of less dowry given in her marriage to the accused persons. She also told my mother that accused no. 1 Rajesh always says her that he has lost interest in her. She told me and my mother that whenever she carried along with her some sweets, her sister in law Pinki, brother in law Rakesh they passed comments that what type of sweets I have brought with me. She further told me and my mother that her mother in law say that she does not want to see her face. On 22nd August, 1999, I and Sonali came back at Nagpur. In the return journey also Sonali was all along expressing her fear in the mind that what will happen to her at her matrimonial house and how will she be treated?" [Quoted from page 96 & 97 of revision paper book] (p) "On 2nd October, 1999, I had been to the house of Sonali along with my father. At that time also, I observed that Sonali was too unhappy". At that time also, I observed that Sonali was too unhappy". [Quoted from page 97 of revision paper book] (q) "I phoned at the house of Sonali and had a talk with Sonali on telephone, Sonali told me that as our parents have not made any phone call at Mumbai when her father in law was admitted in the hospital at Mumbai, her in laws are having grudge against them and have passed unwarranted comments against them and she apprehend that they will ill treat her mother also. She further repeated that she is being ill-treated in the same way as she was ill-treated in past". [Quoted from page 97 of revision paper book] (q) "She further told me that she is always afraid of whether she will be adjusted by her in law and her husband or not?" [Quoted from page 97 of revision paper book] (r) "Rakesh was on telephone, he told me that Sonali is taking rest". [Quoted from page 97 of revision paper book] (12) "According to me, Sonali committed suicide being fed up with the ill-treatment she was receiving by her husband and her in laws". [Quoted from page 99 of revision paper book] 7. The PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW6 & PW-7 substantially repeat what earlier witnesses have said and the same portion need not be either referred to or quoted. However, summary thereof is as stated in following paras. 8. PW-2 Madhukar Laxman Ambidwar is the neighbour of PW-1 Janardan Sawarkar. This witness deposed that: He has attended the marriage of deceased Sonali. He met father in law and mother in law of Sonali who told him that Sonali had gone out and she is likely to come back within a short while. He was again informed that Sonali had gone to one beauty-parlour and will come back within 15 to 20 minutes but Sonali did not come. Then he left the house of said Awachat. On 24-10-99 in the morning, he read newspaper regarding Sonali that she has died. 9. PW-5 is Sau. Sunita W/o Janardan Sawarkar who is mother of deceased Sonali. This witness states that:- Immediately after the marriage of Sonali, the in-laws (i.e. accused no.2 to 4) of Sonali started showing their displeasure. Then he left the house of said Awachat. On 24-10-99 in the morning, he read newspaper regarding Sonali that she has died. 9. PW-5 is Sau. Sunita W/o Janardan Sawarkar who is mother of deceased Sonali. This witness states that:- Immediately after the marriage of Sonali, the in-laws (i.e. accused no.2 to 4) of Sonali started showing their displeasure. Mother in law of Sonali namely Tarabai, her sister in law Pinki and brother in law Rakesh told her that they (Tarabai, Pinki and Rakesh) are so dirty people that they (Tarabai, Pinki and Rakesh) even do not wish to see their face. On 18.8.1999, Sonali came to Yavatmal along with her younger daughter Rashmi and told that she is being ill-treated by her in laws (i.e. accused nos.2 to 4). She told that her mother in law always taunts her and blames her for not bringing the adequate valuables and gift ornaments. Sonali had told her that her husband does not behave with her properly. Sonali had told her that accused no. 1 Rajesh says that he does not like her and that he has no interest in her. On 24-8-99, at Yavatmal, one Suresh Jirapure and his wife came to their house in the evening and informed them that Sonali is serious and she is admitted in the Hospital. 10. PW-6 Suresh Narayanrao Ajmire is the neighbour of PW-1 Janardan Wamanrao Sawarkar. He was present in the marriage ceremony of deceased Sonali with accused No.1 Rajesh at Yavatmal on 10.7.99. This witness deposed that:- The father in law, mother in law, sister in law and brother in law of deceased Sonali all had walked off from the 'Pangat' arranged after the marriage, in protest of not receiving the required honour as per their status. The in-laws of Sonali were also dissatisfied because of not receiving the gift articles and valuables from the parents of Sonali as per their expectations. This was the another reason for walking off all these persons from the 'Pangat'. 11. PW-7 Dr. Nitin Ashokrrao Bhalme has deposed in his evidence that :- He was present in the marriage on 10-7-99. Accused Rajesh, his father, mother, brothers and sisters all walked away from the post-marriage lunch (Pangat) and they refused to take the lunch. This was the another reason for walking off all these persons from the 'Pangat'. 11. PW-7 Dr. Nitin Ashokrrao Bhalme has deposed in his evidence that :- He was present in the marriage on 10-7-99. Accused Rajesh, his father, mother, brothers and sisters all walked away from the post-marriage lunch (Pangat) and they refused to take the lunch. The accused had informed by them that they have not received their honour as per their expectations, so also they have not received the ornaments, gifts, and valuables from the parents of deceased Sonali as per their expectations and hence, they are dissatisfied. 12. PW-8 Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit, PW-9 Madhukar Narayan Wani and PW-10 Vijaykumar pertain to investigation and medical record and in view of the fact that the suicidal death is proved, it is not necessary to discuss anything about those. (a) PW-8 Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit is the Medical Practitioner. This witness deposed that:- On 25-10-1999, he was attached to Government Medical College at Nagpur. He received requisition for conducting post mortem examination of dead body of Sonali Rajesh Awachat. He along with other two doctors conducted postmortem and prepared postmortem report vide Exh.57. (b) PW-9 Madhukar Narayan Wani who is a Police Sub Inspector, attached to Police Station Ganeshpeth. This witness deposed that:- On 24-10-1999, he received a marg in respect of the death of Sonali Awachat. The complainant Janardan Sawarkar filed a written complaint, and he accepted the same. He has prepared printed FIR, arrested the accused persons. He has recorded the statements of wife of complainant, Madhukar Ambidwar, Minal Bhalme and Nitin Bhalme and Rashmi Sawarkar, and Madhavi Bhalme, Suresh Ajmire. He also seized the video cassette of the post mortem of deceased Sonali. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet in the Court. (c) PW-10 Vijaykumar is the Police Sub Inspector attached to Ganeshpeth Police Station. He states that :- On 24-10-99, he received information at about 7.45 p.m. that one Sonali Rajesh Awachat residing at Navi Shukrawari has committed suicide. He has visited the spot of incident and took entry in the police station diary. He has prepared spot panchanama and seized two articles one was the two pieces of Dupatta and another was knife. He has prepared the inquest panchanama. 13. He has visited the spot of incident and took entry in the police station diary. He has prepared spot panchanama and seized two articles one was the two pieces of Dupatta and another was knife. He has prepared the inquest panchanama. 13. The emphasis is given by the State as well as revision petitioner on the aspect proved by the prosecution that:- (a) The respondents were unhappy with the treatment given to them during the feast (Pangat) at the time of marriage and on that ground, they used to humiliate, ill-treat and cause mental cruelty to Sonali. (b) The accused did not allow Sonali to have free telephonic conversation with her parents and other relatives on matrimonial side and this also resulted in causing mental cruelty relating to dowry related demand or she was otherwise treated with cruelty. 14. Learned Advocate for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on the following Judgments: [1] (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 445, Gurbachansingh Vs. Satpal Singh and others. Proposition: Taunting may constitute ill-treatment. Other points are not relevant for the purpose of case at hand. [2] (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 371, Smt. Shanti and another Vs. State of Haryana. Proposition: For the purposes of Section 304-B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, meaning of dowry would be the same as understood by Dowry Prohibition Act. The cruelty or harassment for the purpose of Section 304-B will be the same as defined in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. [3] (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 470 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1469 (S.C.)), State of A.P. Vs. Rajgopal Asawa and another. Proposition: Term 'Soon before' her death used in Section 304-B of I.P.C. and Section 113B of the Evidence Act, is to be complied with the test of a 'proximity', and no definite period has been indicated. Moreover, the expression 'soon before' is not defined, and will have to be construed depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and would normally imply that the interval between two incidences to be connected by the term 'soon before' should be connected by live link to connect the cause and effect. [4] (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 309 : 11998 ALL MR (Cri) 502 (S.C.)], Pawan Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana. [4] (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 309 : 11998 ALL MR (Cri) 502 (S.C.)], Pawan Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana. Proposition: The concept of benefit of doubt ruling the criminal law will have to be read with appropriate modification considering the stringent provision created by Section 304-B of the I.P.C. read with Section 113-B of Evidence Act. [5] (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 207 : [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1180 (S.C.)], Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab and others. [6] (2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 415 : [2007 ALL SCR 1407], Rajlal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand. [7] (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 350 : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2642 (S.C.)], Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana. [8] (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 161, Ratan Singh Vs. State of H.P. Proposition: For a statement of a person to be admissible under Section 32 of Evidence Act, it need not be under hanging possibility of death affront the person making it. In India, if the death is an eventuality and the statement made pertains to the cause of death, notwithstanding that the death was not eminent, such statement could be admitted in the evidence. 15. This Court has considered the evidence relied upon by the appellant/revision petitioner and the case laws relied upon. 16.. Version of witnesses on which prosecution and the complainant has emphasized in order to attract Section 498-A and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are summarized as follows: Before marriage, members of Awachat family expressed that: [I] Incidents & facts prior to solemnization of marriage. (1) Marriage should be a grand function. (2) The gold and silver ornaments to be presented should suit the status of the family of groom. (3) Welcoming and other programmes on the eve of marriage should be nice and memorable. (4) After engagement ceremony, the accused persons demanded Rs.35,000/- for purchase of clothes and gold chain of two tolas which were given. [II] Incidents & facts during & after marriage. (1) Accused persons declined to honour the special lunch (Pangat) on the day of marriage on account of unsatisfactory delivery of presentation of articles meant for Sonali. They declined to take meals inspite of pursuation. (2) Even after marriage, on account of said improper delivery of presentation of articles, their dissatisfaction was continued. (1) Accused persons declined to honour the special lunch (Pangat) on the day of marriage on account of unsatisfactory delivery of presentation of articles meant for Sonali. They declined to take meals inspite of pursuation. (2) Even after marriage, on account of said improper delivery of presentation of articles, their dissatisfaction was continued. (3) Sister of Sonali namely Mrunali and Rashmi who used to visit Sonali disclosed that: (i) Sonali does not seem to be happy in marital life. (ii) Whenever Sonali used to make phone call to Yavatmal, she was not allowed to make complete talk or never allowed her in isolation for talk. (iii) On 18-9-1999 when Sonali came to Yavatmal, she was not happy and broke into tears saying that she was not like by her husband, and her husband has no interest in her. (iv) Sonali expressed that her in laws are dissatisfied due to non fulfillment of their expectation on account of inadequate gifts and told that something more will have to be given. 17. The Part-I contained in foregoing para pertains to expectations and demands. Those demands in themselves do not constitute dowry related demands, as it is not proved that those were pressed on compliance of condition towards settlement of marriage. 18. In so far as the Part-II noted in the foregoing para is concerned, the first item pertains to the grievance of the accused persons relating to lack of due honour and prestige. The said act as well as the act of expression of dissatisfaction in itself does not constitute dowry related demand as a condition for marriage, or insistence in that regard. In so far as the matters contained in item no.3 in the foregoing point No.11 in said para is concerned, those are the matters, reflecting on the behaviour of the accused persons and their attitude which is not appreciable. Rather it is deplorable, yet these acts considered from any angle fall short of description to answer the term 'ill-treatment over dowry related demand' & it be of such nature and extent that 'it would drive the victim to commit suicide'. 19. Other witnesses who depose as to various things and which constitute different version in faction. Versions of these witnesses, all taken together do not compose of totality of imputations made by PW-1 against the accused persons. 20. 19. Other witnesses who depose as to various things and which constitute different version in faction. Versions of these witnesses, all taken together do not compose of totality of imputations made by PW-1 against the accused persons. 20. In the given situation, the urge of the prosecution as well as the complainant is to persuade this Court to believe its version that whatever is narrated by them constitute ill-treatment over dowry related demand and that too of such nature and extent that the Court should believe that due to said treatment, the deceased was bound to be driven to commit suicide. 21. The description given by the prosecution witness is incohate and does not succeed in painting a picture that it constituted ill-treatment of such nature and that too over dowry related demand and of such nature and extent that the deceased would have preferred death to the life, or inflicted on oneself such injury which would have endangered her life. 22. In the given situation, we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove the acts attributed to the accused. The revision application as well as appeal, therefore, cannot fructify into desired result. 23. The Judgment and order under appeal though debated to be erroneous is not shown to be perverse or rendered without considering the material on record. Even otherwise unless the findings are shown to be perverse any inference in appeal or revision in criminal jurisdiction would be impermissible. 24. In the result, both appeal as well as revision application have no merit and are dismissed. Appeal and Revision Application dismissed.